Here is an interesting article I just read from the Hunting Network -

Thought it would provoke a thought or two -

There is no such thing as ethical hunting.
by Hugh Randall

This is simply because one man’s ethics is another man’s crime.

Some believe that shooting a standing animal is unsporting while others believe that you should not shoot a running animal because of the potential of wounding. Some even believe that you should never take a shot over 200 metres while the opposition would say if you can’t successfully shoot a buck at over 200 meters then you can’t shoot and shouldn’t be hunting
Many believe that hunting with dogs, lying in wait at a waterhole or over bait, shooting from a vehicle, sniping at long range or hunting on fenced farms is unethical while other may hold an opposite view.

Therefore if you are in the Eastern Cape you hunt bushbuck with beaters and dogs and shoot running animals at 300 meters. In Namibia you shoot springbuck of the back of an Uri and in Zimbabwe you hunt leopard with dogs or over bait.

Essentially ethics appear to be a set of rules developed by an individual or groups of individuals to make the hunt more challenging and therefore more enjoyable. These so called ethics are dependant on the circumstances or environment in which the hunt takes place. They are designed to meet the hunter’s needs not that of the animal. If you asked an animal what it wanted given that death is inevitable, I believe the animal would say that it wanted to live a good life and die without suffering. While I am not a trophy hunter it appears to me that trophy hunting fulfils this – the animal lives long to be a trophy and because of the cost is shot with precision.

I have always been of the opinion that there is no such thing as ethics when you kill – there is only an objective and that is to kill quickly.
In the final analysis hunting is killing – flat shooting rifles with perfect bullets, high powered scopes, ballistic tables, range finders, and rests make bullet delivery to one third of a minute of angle very possible.

I recently saw a video of a resting deer being taken at 860 meters. The buck was clearly hit in the spine and killed very quickly. I have to admire the shooting and the fact that the hunter knew the bullet drop and the wind conditions to be able to make the kill. That takes an enormous amount of practice and tests to achieve that. However many would be horrified with the range and the fact that the buck was lying down.

As to the issue of hunting, there is no doubt in my mind that hunting = conservation and this is easily empirically proven.
In this economically driven world, if you want to conserve something give it an economic value.
The result of this has been an explosion in the number of kudu in SA – especially in the Eastern Cape.

It is a fact that conservation starts with the soil, then the flora and finally the fauna.
There are 300 new game farms a year in SA which have to conserve the environment (soil and flora) for the game to exist.
Without the game having an economic value in terms of the eco tourism, hunting and culling (trophy, skins and meat) the reason for their existence would disappear.
And then there is the fact that there needs to be a replacement for natural predators such as lion etc. and that replacement is the hunter and is man not part of nature?
Man is a predator or at least those of us that kill and eat our own meat are.
The rest are scavengers, eating what others kill for them.

Of course we kill millions of chickens, sheep, goats, pigs and cattle (even day old calves) a day in SA and no one has a problem with that except the animal rightists.
The maybe 500 wild animals that are shot a day is insignificant in the overall scheme of things and just like the domestic animals this is sustainable killing.

Finally, we get excited when we see a wild animal like an antelope – why?
This is instinctive – we are essentially still cave men and that excitement is because we are seeing potential.
We get even more excited when we see other predators because we are seeing competition.

So I say to people who are critical of hunting but eat meat that they support killing and therefore cannot criticize the killers. Those that only eat fish are just as bad because millions of fish die a suffocating death every day and those who are vegans are proposing the extinction of all animals because they will have no value which will mean the end of the need to conserve natural fauna and the soils because they will only be valuable if they are edible or arable.

I recently shot a bushbuck ram in the head running at 75 which had been flushed by beaters and chased by dogs and I used a rifle that cost R20 000 firing a bullet that had been turned on a CNC machine which I had loaded using precision electronic equipment – it was premeditated conservation!!! (and I flew 1000 km to do it)

So let’s call a spade a spade – hunting is killing and I am not sure that killing is sport.
Predators don’t kill for sport – they kill because they are predators.
As humans we should be as humane about it as defined by our so called civilization.

“Canned hunting†is another of my hobby horses.
It is economic killing just like it is with domestic animals.
Whether a farmer breeds a cow and sends it to the abattoir or breeds a lion and has a foreign hunter come and shoot it through a fence, the result is the same.
He gets paid, an animal dies and part or parts of the animal are utilized by man.

I cannot understand why emotion trumps logic in these issues. Maybe we need to start looking at these issues in terms of hard facts and hunters need to understand their role in nature and not be so critical of one another.

Here endeth the lesson………

Excellent,

But what of the guys killing and wantonly wasting the animal?

I am a hunter and I kill animals, no regrets.

I agree with every point expressed by Mr. Randall.Can't find fault in it in any way.Don't feel the need to add to it.

The man has some good points. Thanks for posting it.

Fighting each other just divides us and makes us easier to deal with.

That is a very interesting perspective, some serious food for thought. Thanks for sharing, dogcat.

Dave

Its difficult to impose ethics in people at the end of the day ethics is the boundries set for yourself by yourself.
ethics can be discribed as how difficult or easy you wanna make your hunt how far do you wanna challenge yourself.if i had to shoot a kudu of 60" in the bushveld of the back of a bakkie i wont even mount it or register it. there is no story imagine this (Son we drove all day the aircon did not work properly but it was fine luckily we found this big bull standing next to the road by 9:30 so it was not realy hot yet. i took dead rest over the trucks mirror and pulled of a good shot)but walk 3 days for it and getting close a few times and then shooting it over your knee. i promise you you will get a pielstyf every time you look at the trophy.there is things in life money cant buy and that is one off them.

i believe that argueing with greenies and saying we use ethics doesnt realy change their point of view it just gives them more sticks to beat us with. fuck that i hunt and killing is part off it and i am the only one that goes to bed with my concience so it my memories off how i hunt that is my ethics and being able to tell my kids and grandchildren the true story and leaving aspiration in their eyes and not discust that is ethics

I tend to agree with alot of this. I put more emphasis on motive than ethics personally. someone who uses all the tech he can to put meat in the freezer is fine (as long as he has enough respect for the animal to put it down fast). Someone who goes out to waste meat or use the animal to feed his ego doesn't rank very high in my books (I'm not a big fan of the varmint plinking types, sorry). Again, emphasis on motive not methodology.

Of course I suppose this means that I have attached an ethical measure to motivation. In which case it is just my values and opinion. Someone who does something I think is unethical is free to do it (as long as it is legal) but shouldn't expect my respect or admiration. As long as he is ok with the number of people who feel like I do (possibly few, possibly many) then he can go on.


As far as the canned hunts,

quote:

He gets paid, an animal dies and part or parts of the animal are utilized by man.

True enough. And in the end this is what a canned hunt is. However, I believe that much of the objection to canned hunts doesn't result from the animal dying but rather from the hunter often using the trophy as a measure of his skill, bravery and bravado. Not so much unethical as a misrepresentation of reality. Not to mention the narrow-mindedness of it. A hunt is so much more (even more so in an exotic place far from home) than a shot at an animal. If all you are concerned about is the shot you miss out on so much. I'm not too fond of people like this, never will be. As I said above, as long as they can sleep at night go for it. Don't expect any admiration from me.

Very nice post BTW

Capidosoma, I don't expect anything from anybody. That way I am never disappointed and many times uplifted by others.

I liked the "premeditated conservation"

Hunting is using the superior mind and tools with inferior senses and abilities of a human to catch an animal of superior senses and abilities. The lesser or limited the tools used the better the trophy. But that is one mans opinion.

I would feel more satisfaction to have killed with a primitive bow and arrows i made myself than my fancy Mathews Solocam 320 fps uberbow.

As for "ethics," in the end, the Hunter hunts himself. Some of us are predators. The rest are scavengers. That sums it up for me. LDK

dogcat,
Thank you for saying so succinctly what I have been so laboriously trying to say for years. It expresses my feelings about hunting perfectly.

IMHO, the author of this piece is wrong on nearly every fundamental issue he addresses.

Even his unstated assumptions are wrong.

But I am admittedly old-fashioned in this day and age when everything is relative and there is no difference between right and wrong.

In today's society, there are no universally accepted ethics. We can thank diversity for this situation.

Ethics shared by the masses can exsist in a homogeneous society, but not a diverse one. Ethics are like paper currency - they only have value because someone says it has value and everyone else agrees.

I am not trying to stir any "pots", but thought the ideas offered in this article were better stated than I have seen in awhile. It made me think....

Interesting article.

I think we can all agree that it is UNethical to have no concern

regarding whether or not the animal's death is FAST once

the hunter has caused injury to the animal. If a slow and painful

death of an animal does NOT make you unhappy when a human

has caused the injury to the animal, you lack ethics in the matter.

IMO it's NOT hunting if there is little to no chance that you WON'T

have a shooting oppportunity. When I go out deer hunting in my

nearby forest on any given day I am saying to myself, "Will I get

a shot today?" More days than not the answer is NO. The "working

for it" is integral to what makes the shot when it DOES come, the

obvious "next step" when HUNTING! If there is NO doubt that a

shooting opportunity WILL DEFINITELY develope due to human man-

ipulation of the circumstances I can NOT include such a shot as a

part of the process of a "HUNT". Think of British styled driven

bird SHOOTS. Those participating KNOW FOR CERTAIN they WILL

have shooting opportunities, hence these events are called "SHOOTS"!

He may have some food for thought there, but the author makes one huge erroneous statement when he says

quote:

So let’s call a spade a spade – hunting is killing and I am not sure that killing is sport.

While a kill is indeed a part of the hunting experience, it is not all of the hunting experience. Hunting is NOT killing. One does not equate to the other. That is like saying since we're all going to die someday, life is death. Death is certainly the end of life, but is not life in any way, shape or form.

He has one thing right. Hunting is not a sport. It is something much greater. It is who we are.

Count me on the side that disaggrees with the entire premise of this article. Ethics and hunting are inseparable.

The very last thing a person does before a shot is fired, is to make an ethical decision on whether to pull the trigger or not pull the trigger.

The results of that decision will say a lot about the man pulling the trigger.


"A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold, is a pretty good read if anyone wants another opinion on the ethics question.

Regards

Elmo

Canned shoots (to borrow BigFiveJack's point) do not bother me personally--although I don't think I would get any satisfaction out of one. In fact, we could even praise the canned shoot client for taking an active role in moving the head from the pen to the wall, when he could have just purchased the mount with less effort. Besides, any of us can tell if that head on the wall was "hunted" or "shot" by looking at the "hunter".
However, whether you believe in ethics or not, whether you believe hunting is sport or not, we all have some pretty determined adversaries. About the best thing we can collectively do to preserve hunting for ourselves and our children is to commit ourselves to making the quarry's death humane and fast--whether it is standing, resting, running, eating bait, whatever.

Some truths but the bottom line is that killing a cow in an abbatoir cannot be compared to hunting. The economic principles are similar but that is where it ends. Hunting is about the hunt and not the killing. Canned hunting is an abomination that has no place in Africa and needs to be brought to an end. No self respecting hunter will pursue game that is guaranteed because it is contained in a small area and cannot escape - be that 100 hectares or 1000 hectares.Fences have their place and people will split hairs about what is a big enough area. Personally i feel the Rowland Ward guilds standards are the bench mark for all ethical and self respecting hunters www.rowlandward.com go to the hunters guild and read for yourself.

In my experience most foreigners visiting Africa are collectors rather than real hunters and how they get their game is not as important as whether they get it or not. A sad truth!

quote:

In my experience most foreigners visiting Africa are collectors rather than real hunters and how they get their game is not as important as whether they get it or not. A sad truth!

Scott450

I am pleased to report that in my experience the opposite is true. The vast majority of guys I have hunted with are most certainly real hunters. I wonder what makes our experiences different?

Dave

quote:

While a kill is indeed a part of the hunting experience, it is not all of the hunting experience. Hunting is NOT killing. One does not equate to the other. That is like saying since we're all going to die someday, life is death. Death is certainly the end of life, but is not life in any way, shape or form.

He has one thing right. Hunting is not a sport. It is something much greater. It is who we are.

Jim Manion

Well said, Sir.

Dave

I agree with mrlexma. The author obviously has no concept of the meaning of the term ethics. Consider the following statement:
"xxxx is ethically wrong, but it's OK by me if you do it". I claim that anyone who makes that statement does not understand the meaning of the word. If something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong! End of story. There is no "in my opinion". The fact that it is not enforceable like a law, is irrelevant. Having said that, society can and does "enforce" ethical standards by chosing to ostracize the individuals who break the code. If society does not do that, then that is a choice that society makes. Victorian society certainly enforced that kind of code and gave rise to the "women and children first" notion. Perhaps if we met a male survivor of the Titanic we would say "Good on Sir, Glad you made it!".
Peter.

Since I still sometimes learn something, it might be a little too soon to have a definitive answer. One problem with the discussing it is the meaning of the word "hunting" itself. Some would seem to argue that if it is not ethical than it is not hunting. But then the waters get muddied with terms like:

-Meat hunting
-Varmint hunting
-Sport hunting
-Illegal hunting
-Trophy hunting

etc. Like I say, I don't have the answer.

Hunting ethics exist and however far and fast Mr. Randall runs, he cannot escape that reality. Ethics may sometimes be unclear and often need some thought, but they are universal and not subject to individual whim.

ELMO and BIGFIVEJACK have posted some elements, and MRLEXMA is right on track.

Regards

Ethics are not universal. They vary from person to person and group to group. Who can say that one person's or one group's ethics are superior to another's?

You can enact laws to enforce ethics, but this is not the same as a person or group accepting those ethics.

There is no Master Book of Ethics that define which set of ethics are superior. Yes, I may believe mine are correct, but so what? The Taliban figher believes his are correct.

So, no ethics are not universal.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
"xxxx is ethically wrong, but it's OK by me if you do it". I claim that anyone who makes that statement does not understand the meaning of the word. If something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong! End of story. Peter.

just a stone in the bush some guys have no moral issue with sleeping with the neighbours wife and some do in both cases both parties think its right. that is why people associate with people of the same moral fibre you cant teach a 40year old morals anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by CVC:
Ethics are not universal. They vary from person to person and group to group. Who can say that one person's or one group's ethics are superior to another's?

You can enact laws to enforce ethics, but this is not the same as a person or group accepting those ethics.

There is no Master Book of Ethics that define which set of ethics are superior. Yes, I may believe mine are correct, but so what? The Taliban figher believes his are correct.

So, no ethics are not universal.

Well said. My personal definition of "ethics" is the standards endorsed by the majority of people in a particular area. Hence the American who shoots a pronghorn from a windmill in Wyoming is an ethical hunter, but an unethical one if he plugs a springbok from another windmill in Namibia.

Bill Quimby

"There is no such thing as ethical hunting"

Bollocks.

"Ethics" in hunting has to do whether the hunt is sporting or not. Sporting means giving an animal a fair chance of escaping or elluding a hunter.

The search for the almighty record book entry and bragging rights is the reason for the decrease in hunting ethics and sporting attitudes. And levels of fitness to do it the sporting way.

So this writer argues there is nothing separating a obese sniper shooting from a chopper or a small pen in South Island to the guy that hunts and stalks a great free range trophy animal over many days and many kilometres on foot.

Bollocks.

Those who truly believe that ethics are not universal should then have no objection to being kicked in the balls without provocation. After all, upon what grounds could any objection be made? Certainly not because it was wrong to do so as the word “wrong†has no meaning without the existence of a universal standard against which actions are judged.

quote:

Originally posted by Wismon:
CVC & Bill Quimby,

If you truly believe ethics are not universal then neither of you should have any objection to being kicked in the balls without provocation. After all, upon what grounds could any objection be made? That it was wrong to do so? Oh really? Tell me about this word “wrongâ€; it has no meaning without the existence of a universal standard against which actions are judged.

Thank you for making my point. You see, even if my ethics prevent me from harming another person it won't stop someone who does not share that belief from doing it.


I personally would not, unprovoked, harm another person. However, there are numerous people in the US and other countries that do not think the same way. Lots of street gangs or organized crime associates have a code of conduct or ethics that allow them to harm others outside their group.

Do you really believe that your ethics are the same as a suicide bomber's? Is he not acting based on his belief that his code of ethics is the right ones and your's are wrong?

My point is not that there shouldn't be ethics, but that we need to realize that in today's world we are not going to have agreement on what those ethics should be.

Point out a code of conduct and I'll point, in just about every case, to a group that believes differently.

For example, you may have a code of ethics requiring fair chase in hunting, but I can guarantee that there is a man somewhere that wants to feed his family and will kill an animal legally or illegally in any manner possible to feed his family and says screw your fair chase notions, my family is starving.

So, do your fair chase ethics trump his? I doubt that he thinks so.

I agree that certitude is not the test of certainty, but one need not be an ethical relativist, not even in today's humanistic world.

It is possible to develop a code of behavior that is universal, consistent and systematic, without recourse to religion or mysticism, as a few notable modern thinkers have done.

The entire civilized world is a society of sorts, and quite a big one, and civilized people have independently established fairly consistent codes of behavior with respect to key matters. The same is true of sport hunters the world over. And to be clear, we are talking about sport hunters here, not subsistence hunters.

Criminals, of course, do not have ethics, in any normal sense of the word. They are anti-social and unwilling to abide by any code. Honor among thieves is a romantic myth.

By definition, criminals operate outside societal norms, no matter which society the particular malefactors may come from and choose to disrupt. One cannot justify moral relativism by reference to them or their ilk.

MR,

Very well put and I agree with much that you say, but the point I would make is that line between what is criminal and what is not is blurring rapidly.

The world in the 1950s was pretty black and white in terms of good and evil. Not so today. Behavior that once was consider taboo is now socially acceptable.

Ethics has become fluid instead of constant. The world has gotten smaller which puts one society's ethics into direct confrontation with anothers. Today, unlike a couple of decades ago, the fundamenatilist Islamic and the non-religious Westerner live side by side in this global world. This leads to a clash of ethics.

I am not sure that I would agree that sport hunters have established a fairly consistent code. Just look at the variety of responses one gets when they post about high fence hunting, baiting, and using dogs to hunt.

Here is an interesting insight on the topic of hunting ethics by James A. Tantillo who teaches ethics and environmental philosophy at Cornell University:

Ethics versus Preferences
When I give lectures on the topic of hunting, I find that there is a need to distinguish between hunting ethics and hunting aesthetics, or
between ethics and preferences. Perhaps due to our underdeveloped understanding of ethics, most people today who think about
hunting tend to lump all value questions together under the heading "ethics," without regard for whether that classification is accurate
or not. Most of what passes for "hunting ethics" today is really hunting aesthetics. I believe that when hunters speak of a "right way"
or a "wrong way" to hunt, they generally mean something more like "the way I like to hunt" versus "the way you like to hunt." (We
see this in current disputes about the use of antique muzzleloader rifles versus modern inline muzzleloaders; about hunting with
hounds versus dogless stalking; or about the merits of compound bows, recurved bows, longbows, and crossbows.)
Aside from hunter safety and the issue of killing animals cleanly, quickly, and humanely, there are very few ethical issues involved in
how the practice of hunting is conducted. Hunters and anti-hunters need to be made more aware of this as well. Much anti-hunting
legislation that has been passed so far, in the U.S. and elsewhere, has regulated essentially aesthetic aspects of the hunt: the practice of
hunting over bait, the use of one type of technology over another, or the hunting of game with hounds. This is a bit like legislating
one's preference for vanilla ice cream. If hunters and anti-hunters were more aware of the essentially aesthetic nature of these various
hunting practices, I hazard the guess that there would probably be far less eagerness to regulate or ban certain forms of hunting on the
part of either hunters or anti-hunters.
Examples illustrating "hunting ethics" versus "hunting preferences"
There is a difference between the "morality of hunting" and what many hunters refer to as "the ethics of hunting" (for an example of
the latter, see e.g., Posewitz 1994) The first involves the moral discussion of the rightness or wrongness of hunting in general, the
latter involves the ethics of a specific hunting practice. The morality of hunting covers all forms of hunting, each with its own
individual set of traditions, unique customs, and particular "ethics of practice." In contrast, what most hunters think of as the "ethics
of hunting" generally refers to the specific rules that govern a particular form or genre of hunting, or one might think in philosophical
terms of different styles of hunting. Each style, genre, or form of hunting has a loyal following and, usually, an internally consistent
set of ethical and aesthetic standards that typify the form.
I generally hesitate to weigh in on questions of "hunting ethics," which usually involve more aesthetic than ethical issues. One or two
examples may illustrate the point. Shooting ducks on the wing is one case: true devotees of duck hunting insist upon the necessity of a
"rule" to shoot ducks only on "the wing," i.e. in the air, and not while they are at rest on the water. The phrase "sitting duck" captures
the essence of unsporting practice-the shooting at any target that is not "fair game." And yet, shooting a duck on the water may be a
far more deadly shot, more likely to kill the bird cleanly, more guaranteed to put a bird "in the bag" than an ethically riskier shot at a
duck flying straightaway at a high speed over forty yards distant. "Potting" ducks (as in killing a duck for the pot, i.e. as food) on the
water in the latter case is simply a violation of the aesthetic norms that make duck hunting, duck hunting. The question of how ducks
are shot during the course of duck hunting is thus largely (not entirely) an aesthetic issue and not an ethical one at all. This distinction
is often misunderstood by hunters as well as by anti-hunters.
Another example may cement the point. The practice of "baiting" game animals is constantly debated among hunters as a question of
"hunting ethics." (I will ignore for the moment concerns about CWD and the like.) Critics say that baiting is too easy and that it
reduces the amount of effort and skills needed to successfully hunt game animals such as deer, bear, or moose. Practitioners of the art
of baiting typically respond, "Don't knock it unless you've tried it." Aside from the moral issues surrounding the vice of laziness and
related moral concerns about the lack of human character such a vice implies, baiting does not seem to be an "ethical" issue per se as
much as it is an aesthetic issue. Let me explain.
In northern Wisconsin there is at least one individual that I know of who begins his daily baiting of deer at least two months before the
beginning of deer season. Reasoning that he wants the deer to show up at his stand in the woods when he is there, he goes out to the
woods twice a day: once in the morning to lay out his spread of corn, apples, sugar beets, and whatever else he uses to attract deer to
his location, and then once again in the evening to take it all away. That's two trips a day, for two months: or 120 trips to the woods,
all in the hopes that the deer become habituated to visiting his chosen site only in daylight (legal shooting) hours. During the two
months of baiting, this individual also occasionally climbs in his tree stand over the bait pile for the pleasure of simply watching the
deer that come by. His enjoyment of deer hunting is thus extended considerably in this way, and during the time period when he is
simply a wildlife watcher certainly does not involve killing in any way. All of this is for the privilege of being able to select his own
venison, "on the hoof" so to speak, come opening day.
Another deer hunter hunts his own land and sits under apple trees that the previous owners planted some seventy-five to a hundred
years earlier. He shoots and kills the first deer that comes along on opening day.
Who is to say which hunter has the richer, more authentic hunting experience? If the primary objection against the practice of
"baiting" is that it is too easy and requires little or no effort, then certainly the Wisconsin deer hunter has put far more effort into
killing his deer than has his counterpart who has merely staked out his deer stand on opening day and rather opportunistically "hunted"
the deer he knows beforehand will frequent his apple trees.
In the case of the habitual deer baiter, what outsiders would criticize as unfair advantage and unsporting practice actually contributes
to a year round interest in deer. The deer baiter is probably more of a "hunter-naturalist" or "nature hunter" than most hunters. His
shot at close range on opening day is almost assured of being a well-aimed, carefully selected, and quickly killing clean shot.
The second hunter may hunt only deer; and only hunt once a year. His hunting experience lasts approximately an hour, or two at the
most, among the apple trees on opening day. He may not give much thought to nature, to deer biology, to the wind or the vagaries of
scent, or to much else. (Perhaps he is a college professor who is in a hurry to get back into the office for a 9:30 appointment with a
student advisee.) Nonetheless, his shot at close range on opening day is almost equally assured of being a well-aimed, carefully
sighted, and quickly killing clean shot.
And yet at the moment of the kill, each of these two individuals may feel that pang of remorse: that momentary sense of pity and fear,
of attraction and repulsion at what they have done-regret for having killed, but gladness for having done it well. That emotional
response may in fact be partly what drives them each year to make the effort that they do make, to get up well before dawn on opening
day and to go afield in pursuit of killing a deer. Each individual experiences the hunt in a different way. Each individual takes care to
ensure that there is a high probability of killing the animal almost instantly if and when the opportunity to shoot presents itself.
Where these two hunters' experience differs is in the respective style or aesthetics of their hunts, not in the ethics of their hunts.
"Ethics" generally is a term that is chronically misused in the popular hunting press. Each hunter follows his own ritual way of
preparing for the hunt; each hunter conscientiously minimizes the chances of wounding and losing a deer; and each hunter enjoys the
hunt in his own fashion. "Baiting" of game animals seems to attract the same type of criticisms that the potting of sitting ducks does,
and for similar reasons. But I think it important to recognize that each form is simply a variation on a theme: the musical metaphor is
apt.
Conclusion
For these and other reasons I believe that for the most part, the state and other people should stay out of these hunters' business. Each
hunter experiences the hunt in his own idiosyncratic and highly personal way. Assuming the hunter is respecting the laws designed to
protect game populations and human life and property, each hunter acts ethically. Neither hunter is hurting anyone else. (The deer, if
well shot, certainly feels almost nothing.) Each hunter's choices, whether hunting over bait or hunting on one's own land, simply
implies different aesthetic preferences, and little else. I cannot speak for either hunter's experience, nor would I want to impose my
own idiosyncratic hunting values and force my aesthetic preferences on another hunter. I may choose to employ my full powers of
aesthetic suasion to convert either or both hunters over to my way of thinking, but that's as far as my legitimate authority in either
hunter's affairs should extend. In other words, as a matter of concern for social or governmental intrusion, hunting should be virtually
"off the radar screen" for the moral or aesthetic police.
And as a group, hunters are their own worst enemy when it comes to pointing fingers at each other and saying, "My way is better than
your way; so let's ban your way." Such arguments are often made by hunters who profess to wanting simply "to clean up hunting's
image." In reality, such well-intended efforts by hunters may simply be hastening hunting's demise.
James A. Tantillo teaches ethics and environmental philosophy at Cornell University. A grouse hunting purist, Jim will generally
argue until he is blue in the face that the One, True, Correct Way to Hunt Grouse is with a 16 gauge Parker double gun over the
staunch point of a well trained English setter. In the spirit of political toleration, however, he also argues until he is equally blue in
the face that his retriever and spaniel owning friends be permitted to hunt grouse legally as they see fit, despite their aesthetically
misguided preferences for flushing dogs or 12 gauge autoloaders!

CVC,

What you have said, once you boil it all down, is that while you belive that it's wrong to kick someone in the balls if he hasn't provoked you into doing so, if the other fellow believes it's ok to do so to you then it is indeed ok to treat you in that manner. Remember, it would be your balls that are kicked, but for the big-hearted all-accepting moral relativists amongst us that shouldn't be a problem. I have a heavly lug-soled, steel-toed boot that would work very well for putting your position to the test.

And of course intentionally, avoidably killing unprovoking innocents is wrong regardless of whether the suicide bomber in question believes it to be. Don't be silly. The fact that the suicide bomber is wrong doesn't somehow invalidate the universal standard to which he is not adhering. Someone might not believe in the Law of Gravity but that doesn't somehow invalidate it, Saturday morning cartoons notwithstanding.

CVC,

While I agree that there are many competing systems in the world today, internal inconsistency is the bugaboo of most of the outlying or what I would call pseudo-ethical systems.

Their practitioners end up tripping all over themselves because of internal systemic contradictions. They lose all moral authority as a result. Consequently, upon analysis, they can be shown to be wrong-headed and sometimes even pernicious. We should not balk at calling them just that.


Ramhunter,

Thanks for the interesting article. I think the author is a bit facile in his treatment of the "ethical" versus the "aesthetic," however.

In baiting, he chose a rather easy example. He defended it by reference to the "work" involved, but ignored the tougher issues of fair play and fair chase. I have no problem with hunting over bait, by the way, even though it is illegal in some jurisdictions (of course, if I were to hunt in any such jurisdiction, I would obey the applicable hunting regulations).

Plus, he seemed to ignore, or gloss over, the crucial difference between sport hunting and subsistence hunting. Since none of us will starve to death if we do not hunt, that makes us all sport hunters, IMO. I would think that addressing canned hunting, or shooting from helicopters or moving vehicles, or even shooting from a blind at a water hole would have challenged the author's thesis a bit more.

Wismmon,

You show yourself yet again to be master of the obvious and utterly oblivious. I could wade through your deepest thoughts and not get my ankles wet.

I have no idea who this guy who teaches Ethics at Cornell, is, but I would never take a course from him. His thinking is sloppy, at best!
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Wismon:
CVC,

What you have said, once you boil it all down, is that while you belive that it's wrong to kick someone in the balls if he hasn't provoked you into doing so, if the other fellow believes it's ok to do so to you then it is indeed ok to treat you in that manner. Remember, it would be your balls that are kicked, but for the big-hearted all-accepting moral relativists amongst us that shouldn't be a problem. I have a heavly lug-soled, steel-toed boot that would work very well for putting your position to the test.

And of course intentionally, avoidably killing unprovoking innocents is wrong regardless of whether the suicide bomber in question believes it to be. Don't be silly. The fact that the suicide bomber is wrong doesn't somehow invalidate the universal standard to which he is not adhering. Someone might not believe in the Law of Gravity but that doesn't somehow invalidate it, Saturday morning cartoons notwithstanding.

Perhaps if you can stop obsessing about my balls for a moment and read what I am writing you will understand what I am saying.

You stated that ethics are universal; meaning that everyone agrees on the same ethics. The fact that I think kicking someone in the balls is wrong and the fact that you believe it is ok, proves my point. Not everyone has the same ethics, but they believe their ethics are correct. Ergo, ethics are not universal.

Now, maybe you can argue they should be, but then whose ethics are you going to pick to be the universal ones. Just because you believe that the suicide bomber is wrong (and he is) doesn't mean that he accepts your ethics. In fact, he thinks he is right and is going to heavan for killing innocent people.

Do you think he accepts your ethics? No he doesn't. Does he have a set of ethics that he believes to be right? Yes he does so once again, it is proven that ethics are not universal.

No remember, don't think about my balls as you read this, but read what I wrote. Quit focusing on my balls and tell me where my logic fails.

quote:

You stated that ethics are universal; meaning that everyone agrees on the same ethics

I do not want to get between you two, but this statement is incorrect and in fact contradictory. To say that ethical standards are universal is NOT to state (or even imply) that everyone agrees. The agreement of individuals is NOT a measure of whether ethical standards are universal. (Some people are just plain ignorant, amoral or immoral.) In fact the above discussion, and previous ones about high fence hunts etc. prove that everyone does NOT agree. Does this imply that there are no ethcal standards? Only if you accept the following:
The agrement (assent) of all mankind is a necessary and sufficient condition for whether an ethical statement has universal applicability.
I believe that this universal assent is neither necessary nor sufficent. ie. there are some acts that may be approved by everyone, but nevertheless are still immoral, and there may be some acts that are not approved by everyone, but are still morally correct.
Peter.

Peter, no problem jumping in on the debate.

Ethics have no value unless they are accepted so I think there must be agreement. Otherwise, it is just an individual's morals and not a universal standard.

How can something be approved of by everyone but be immoral? It is society that determines morals and as society changes so does its morals.

Who do you think determines morals or ethics and please provide an example of an universal ethic?